After Congress sounded the death knell for the two-state solution last month, it’s worth looking at how it might have worked in order to come up with new and practical ideas for the future. Taking off from Jerry Haber’s critique of what he termed “Liberal Zionist” failures in envisioning two states, I offer an view of how it should have been in my latest Babylon Times piece, hosted by Souciant.
8 People reacted on this
Comments are closed.
Do you perchance advocate a one-state solution?
If you read the article, I make the answer to that absolutely clear.
Well I have read your article, and I understand that had it been possible you would have preferred a two-state solution, but that now this is not an option. But this does not mean necessarily that you agree with a one-state solution, there may be something else you have in mind for the future. Is it a one-state solution? Or is it something radically different?
I wrote: “…one state is not a solution, but rather is the very condition we live with today…”
I think that’s pretty clear that I don’t think a single state is viable or realistic.
The point is that the two-state scenario that was being worked on for two decades is dead. That doesn’t mean one needs to immediately come up with a new solution–on the contrary, we need to establish clear principles that are as just and as ethical as possible and develop a new framework from that basis. If there were a ready alternative, that would be great, but there isn’t. Hence my closing paragraph:
“With the two-state solution lying dead and dismembered before us, and without an alternative that is any more viable than it ever was in a single-state framework, it is time to articulate what should have been clearly spelled out decades ago: two states means two independent and self-sufficient states, with all the rights and responsibilities that implies. That is what the Oslo two-state formulation never offered. And that’s why it’s dead.”
I believe in many ways that a one state-solution is viable, first. Secondly I believe we’ve exhausted all of our options, there are really only two ways to have this divided. I mean, there are other ways yes, but most of them are ridiculous, it was either going ot be one-state or two state. But Jewish nationalism or zionism, conflicts really with even the goal of a two state solution. Why? Because the very far right really in both nations prevents any real compromise on that issue, it doens’t help that Israeli has all that it needs to freely expand into Palestinian territory. That is what their nationalism drives them to do, they intende to have Israel up to her ancient borders, and that is what they are working towards. But even if they destroyed those settlements and returned to their 1967 borders, Palestine still would not be a very viable state.
[…] it really suggests is that Israel still has an opportunity to end the occupation, allow for a real, viable, secure and self-respecting Palestinian state to emerge, and safeguard its own security while allowing a new Palestine to be secure as well. […]
[…] it really suggests is that Israel still has an opportunity to end the occupation, allow for a real, viable, secure and self-respecting Palestinian state to emerge, and safeguard its own security while allowing a new Palestine to be secure as well. […]
[…] it really suggests is that Israel still has an opportunity to end the occupation, allow for a real, viable, secure and self-respecting Palestinian state to emerge, and safeguard its own security while allowing a new Palestine to be secure as well. […]